Introduction to Philosophy Overview of Some Key Terms/Ideas

(1) “Philosophy” – Etymology

A fusion of two Greek words: “phile” + “sophia”- “Phile,” like in our words “bibliophile” (lover of books) or “audiophile” (lover of

music) means, simply, “the love of”- “Sophia,” like our word “sophisticated,” means “knowledge” or “wisdom”- Thus “philosophy” literally means “lover of wisdom”

o Anyone who sought wisdom, in science, theology, mathematics, logic, ethics, or whatever else, was considered a “philosopher.”

(2) Branches of Philosophy a. Ethics – the study of right/wrong moral conductb. Aesthetics – the study of art and beautyc. Logic – the study of right/wrong reasoningd. Ontology – the study of “being,” of essences, of defining characteristics; what

makes a thing what it is and not something elsee. Physics – the study of nature, the laws of nature, motion, and change f. Epistemology – the study of theories of knowledge; how do we know what we

know; can we ever be certain of anything absolutely; and so on

(3) Ethics

Ethics, broadly, is divided into two main ideologies: relativism and universalism. The distinction is based on whether or not you believe in “universal ethical principles,” that is, things that are “right” or “wrong” regardless of time, place, culture, society, etc. These operate not unlike laws of science, like gravity, humans don’t create them, we discover them, and they exist independently of us. That is, of course, only if you believe they exist. Hence the distinction:

Relativism

The position, in general, that there are no universal, objective ethical principles and we, humans, create ethical principles.

Universalism

The position, in general, that there are universal, objective ethical principles and we, humans, discover these ethical principles which we can then use to measure the ethical value of any human law or cultural practice.

Universal Ethical Principle X

Man-madeLaw Y

Man-madeLaw Z

Cultural Practices, Norms, Values

In the two images above, on the left we have “relativism.” Here, these are people who don’t believe such universal ethical principles exist. Instead, without these, all we have recourse to are our cultural practices, what we, as a community, decide is “right” or “wrong.” Thus, our cultural practices alone (and not universal ethical principles) dictate the laws we make to govern ourselves. The main problem here is that there’s no higher moral standard than our cultural practices, and if our cultural practices dictate the laws we make, how do we know that the laws are ethically good? For example, if we have a cultural practice to enslave people of a certain ethnicity, then we make laws to enforce those practices, and those laws become ethically good. Without a higher standard, there’s no easy way to change them and no reason to change them.

On the right we have “universalism.” Here, we have a universal ethical principle that has been discovered. Once discovered, we can use that as a template or measuring rod to measure our laws against. If they reflect the universal principle, we know our manmade law is just and ethically sound. If it does not, then we know the law is unjust. To take King’s example, a “universal ethical principle” would be something like “human dignity should be uplifted and never degraded” (paraphrased). If that’s a universal ethical principle, then we can use it to measure our current laws. “Segregation statutes” for example, which discriminate against people due to the color of their skin, degrades human dignity. Thus, it does not align with the universal ethical principle, and we can know that it’s unjust.

Some of these problems can be summarized here:

The Three Primary Attempts at Constructing a Universal Ethical Theory:(a) Virtue Ethics. Aristotle. Focus on habit-formation.

Aristotle didn’t provide a theory, a formula, or a set of rules to follow in order to figure out what one should do in a given ethical situation. Instead, he focused his work on creating absolutely fantastic, virtuous people through training and conditioning: to acquire virtues of courage, generosity, compassion, and so forth, once complete, the individual would simply be virtuous and any action taken by that individual would simply be the right ethical thing to do.

(b) Deontology. Kant. Focus on duty rather than consequences.

Problems with Relativism

(1) Fallacious reasoning: this position maintains that whatever is a cultural value, therefore ought to be what guides our ethical conduct.

(2) Cannot track progress over time without assuming a universal ethical law.

(3) Cannot critique other cultures for unethical practices

(4) Ethical values of “right” and “wrong” can change at any time, on a whim, like fashion.

Problems with Universalism

The major problem with this position is that we may have never discovered what these values are and it may be impossible to ever discover them. Further, one can use the disguise of universal ethical law to simply mask one’s own personal biases and prejudices.

Kant has a more calculating mind and came up with a step-by-step process that allows someone to make a good ethical decision. Step 1: formulate a clear idea of what you’re thinking about doing. Step 2: since this is a universal theory and must therefore apply to everyone, imagine a world where everyone got to do what you’re planning on doing. If the conclusion to this thought experiment leads to contradiction and paradox, making it impossible to get away with what you’re thinking about doing, then you know it’s unethical and shouldn’t do it. For example: I’m about to take a test I’m unprepared for. Step 1: I formulate my plan: “I’ll cheat off the person sitting next to me.” Step 2: I imagine a world where everyone gets to do that. In imagining this, I note that as I sit poised and ready to copy from my neighbor’s test, she is about to the same to her neighbor, and his neighbor, and on and on, and everyone is sitting there ready to write, but nothing is getting written, thereby making it impossible to cheat off any test since no one is writing anything! Thus, I conclude, cheating is immoral.

(c) Utilitarianism. Mill/Bentham. Focus on consequences (increase happiness/decrease suffering) rather than intent.

Perhaps the most popular theory today, utilitarianism focuses on increasing happiness and decreasing suffering for the greatest number of “moral patients” (things capable of experiencing happiness and suffering; humans, animals, etc.).

(4) Aesthetics The study of beauty operates in a similar fashion to ethics, and starts with the question of “does a universal or objective standard of beauty exist independently of what you, I, or anyone else, may think?” If you don’t believe in this, you likely fall into the old “beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder” category where no opinion is necessarily more valid than any other. See the distinction below:

(5) Logic

Examples:

Premise 1: All men are mortal.Premise 2: Socrates is a man.Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Subjectivism

The position, in general, that there are no universal, objective aesthetic standards of “beauty’ beyond what the “eye of the beholder” perceives. We create our artistic values.

Objectivism

The position, in general, that there are universal, objective aesthetic standards of “beauty” which, if we discover them, can be used to measure the value of any artistic achievement.

(6) Ontology

If ontology is the study of being, essences, and defining characteristics, we must simply ask “what makes this triangle what it is, and not something else? What is it that cannot be taken away without changing it from being a triangle at all?” Perhaps “three sides” is a good answer. If I were to add a side or remove one, it would no longer be a triangle. Thus, the ontology of a triangle is that it has three sides. Note: if I were to change the color from green to blue, it would still be a triangle. Thus, ontology not only tells us what is essential to a thing to make it that thing, it also tells us what is not essential. This becomes more interesting and more politically charged when we move from the ontology of “triangles” to the ontology of “human beings”: what makes us human and not merely “animal”? What cannot be removed without changing what we are? Reason? Art? Culture? Language? Soul? Do we share these in common with anything else? Further, what is not essential in making a person human? Color? Gender? Religion?

(7) Physics

Starting with Aristotle, physics is the study of the laws of nature, motion, and change. Physics has been effectively building on itself over the generations. Aristotle, for example, operated on the four element system, namely, that everything in nature was comprised of some combination of the four primary elements: earth, fire, air, and water. Each of these elements has a natural “resting place” when left to their own devices. Earth and water naturally seek to rest downward while air and fire naturally seek to rest upward. Thus, a balloon, made primarily of air, naturally floats. And a pen, comprised of mostly earth and a little water, naturally goes down. In effect, this is “gravity” which Newton would go on to note, the difference being Aristotle had no concept of “invisible forces” like gravity so came up with a completely empirical way of describing this phenomenon. Today, philosophers engage in theoretical physics, quantum theory, M-theory, string-theory, and so on.

(8) Epistemology

The study of how we know what we know and what can we know. The two main camps are divided by their reliance on the “senses” or the “mind” to learn the truth:

Empiricism

The position that the senses are a better and more infallible path to Truth than the mind.

Rationalism

The position that the mind is a better and more infallible path to Truth than the senses..

Another big issue today is “certainty.” Scientists, for example, by their own admission, will tell you that their method is “fallible,” meaning its open to revision, change, and error. Certainty in science extends along a spectrum of probability. For example, I could say there is a 99.99% chance of rain tomorrow, but I could not say 100% certainty. This is a point of political contention today since scientists say, for example, there is a 98% chance that global warming is real and is caused by X, Y, and Z. Politicians often dig into the fact that, by their own admission, scientists could be wrong, and thus say that they are entirely uncertainty. Scientists then retort: look, we might be wrong, but 98% certainty that we’re right is not the same as 0% certainty that we’re right. In short, do we need to have 100% certainty to know anything? Can we have 100% certainty? If not, do we give up and say we can never know anything? Or do we adjust our expectations and say, look, 99% is pretty good, I’d say that counts as knowledge?

(9) Four Major Time Periods in the History of Philosophy

(a) Ancient (c. 600 BC – 100 AD)(b) Medieval (c. 100 AD – 1500 AD)(c) Modern (c. 1500 AD – 1890 AD)(d) Contemporary (c. 1890 AD – Now)